@rn_sf: "As far as journalistic standards, I believe journalists should, as anyone else, be objective/unbiased. Objectivity becomes even more important (at least on the moral level) when the publication.."

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but the issue of bias is a very interesting one which also is "too complex subject to cover in a post". A number of books, blogs and articles try to cover it as well - for instance, here at an Economist blog http://bit.ly/haB14s

We are all biased. What we should aim for is identifying, understanding and disclosing our biases. But that's a different topic altogether.

Allow me to explain:
Before reading the Economist article I’ve seen an internet video streaming broadcasted by one of the many TV language stations in Romania (I think it was ProTV or something like that). Oddly enough, the subject was about the logo story and a stream of gross financial mismanagement accusations was directed towards the ministry of tourism. The accusations were serious, apparently, the producers came up with heavy proofs, and the way the Minister (Miss Udrea) and her aids handled the situation was pathetic at its best: defensive statements, rigid discussions, and unconvincing arguments. At one point during the interview, she almost became violent. A very disappointing representation for a minister I would say.
Then I read the Economist’s article and I must say your posting hmm, pardon my supposition was well on line with the video interview I just saw hence my first posting content. Appearances are misleading so they say…
My sincere apologies for my suspicious thoughts.

@ north of sixty
Sorry to disappoint but I'm not a Romanian government agent :-)I am a management/M&A (mergers and acquisitions) advisor - part of my job is to structure robust transactions for my clients (mostly Fortune 500 (US) technology companies - so many of the transactions contain significant IP components) - that is where what you perceived as excessive legal language came from - and no, I haven't run this post by outside counsel :-)
As how I got to the article - it was while reading a random international news page - and would have to acknowledge that the title was scandalous enough to make me click on it while the content was flawed/misleading enough to make me want to post a clarification.
As far as the comment I made on the investment decision making process - it is a too complex subject to cover in a post and a lot of business books cover it really well (and was hopeful that The Economist author has read at least one of them ;-)).
As far as journalistic standards, I believe journalists should, as anyone else, be objective/unbiased. Objectivity becomes even more important (at least on the moral level) when the publication they serve has a significant role in shaping/influencing public perceptions of a subject (in this case country). While unquestionably, articles like the one above will negatively affect the subject, they will also discredit the publication - hopefully for all of our good :-) and I think that is happening to The Economist. And if the lack of objectivity/bias is bad enough, victims will always have the legal option ... since freedom of press/speech should not be confused with freedom to defame/slander/distort the truth to fit a story.

@furbabies
“I'm surprised to this day that they were allowed into the EU.”

Romania was allowed into the EU because there are worse calamities in this world than corruption, like war(see yugoslavia), massacres(see Yugoslavia), mobster killings(see Bulgaria)or the void of power in the region could have been filled by Russia(see Ukraine and Belarus). Any of these situations would have been more detrimental to EU.

@ B_Holman
People are entitled to freely express their point of view whether is biased, subjective and rarely objective. By the way, how many news agencies do you know for having a perfectly objective report record? I have not seen any so far and probably CNN ranks as one of the top twisted and biased storytellers.
I think the Economist links the “unlucky leaf” to the current state of internal administration in Romania. It is far from being acceptable for the EU standards hence the reference to the judicial reforms and anti-corruption measures.
It happens that I’m quite well informed about the “moral standards” in effect in Romania because I do business with several companies in Bucharest for the last 10 years. What the Economist vaguely insinuates I can vouch as fact: corruption, traffic of influence, conflict of interest, and lack of professional and moral standards are the common denominators within Romanian civil society.
Twisted public bids are grossly manipulated through bribery and whatever document or permit one needs is difficult to obtain within reasonable timeframe without using bribery. There is a perfectly sound explanation for the current situation: civil servants are poorly paid, the financial mechanism is so wicked, and volatile one has no clue what to do to avoid breaking the law. However, that will not change the facts. The very facts the Economist insinuates.

Yes, there are people that dropped the Economist because they feel The Economist is biased. You do not believe it, obviously. I am between them. Why am I here? Because I read about this article on another blog and came here to see if it true. And it true and disappointing journalism from The Economist. No news to me.

If you want to look professional, you write about this story without insinuating that Romania did it intentionally. It was a mistake. People probably do not have enough experience in this area, they do not have experience to draft these type of contracts...I agree. And it is fine to write about these things. But it is not ok to generalize and insinuate that plagiarism is rule of law in a country if you do not have solid proof. I expect The Economist to keep the entire world under the same scrutiny and whenever The Economist discovers plagiarism somewhere to call the people of that country thieves, without discrimination.

@keith114
“I don't see the reason why taxpayers (be they Romanians or other Europeans) should subsidize uncompetitive hotel owners in the "Carpathian garden".”

It’s really not the case, at least for the european taxpayer. You should know that out of those billions and billions of euros trumpeted by the EU for Romania, only a small portion have been absorbed. The rest cannot be accessed because of “lack of viable projects”, and other birocratic hurdles erected by the EU.
On the other hand Romania’s contribution to EU’s budget is bigger than the total sum the country is receiving. So, we are in the unhappy situation that one of the poorest countries in EU contributes more than it gets to the EU budget.

The “green leaf” image falls under the artistic works category under the copyright act that clearly states the artistic work is judged by whether the work is original as an expression from its creator and not copied from somewhere else.
The Economist article’s heading is clever: “Did a Romanian tourism campaign take a leaf out of someone else’s book?” The author uses the journalism questioning technique and not the incrimination evidence used in a court of law. Of course, this is about journalism although both logos are posted and few words printed below the images: spot the difference.
The similarities between the two leafs are striking. Right, there are no wheels and the green gradient has been replaced with a blue gradient. That is where the differences are ending. To any viewer the leaf used within the tourism image is similar in appearance, shape and feel with the leaf on wheels used on the transportation company logo. So much for the originality and the creative process!

Although the media company is primarily responsible for the logo creation (I personally find the artwork mediocre at its best) the client (in this case the Romanian Government through its Tourism Department) it is the client under the public scrutiny. The blunter is even more obvious taking into consideration the fact that we are dealing with a public advertising campaign supposed to promote Romania’s tourism industry globally.

The commentator under the acronym “rn_sf” bluntly points the finger at the Economist: “…ignorance of the investment decision making process”. Damn right it is! Unfortunately, it is not the Economist but rather the Tourism Department’s decision-making process. How on Earth those guys are spending a million $ on market research and promotion strategies and they end up with a work of art bought from the internet’s stock photo websites and worse, already being used by a different company?

Why do I have the feeling that under the rn_sf acronym there is a government employee with a lawyer on its side posting “legal based” comments defending Tourism’s Department blunder? If you dropped, your Economist subscription few years ago as you said to me looks strange enough going through economist’s editions. On the other hand, perhaps the issue was brought to your attention during the morning “strategy” meeting.

Come on people, this is not the Romanian press release and a bunch of clumsy and naïve journalists. Although I like the Economist I have no relationship with its staff therefore please do not take my comment as an attempt to protect the publication. They simply did their job as journalists. The Romanian Government did not; it is as simple as that.

To understand this straight: a foreign company makes a mistake in creating a logo for Romania and the name of the article is "Romanian plagiarism". That does not make any sense. If the title is not there by mistake, it is degrading for The Economist and this magazine has reached a new low.

I believe the right title should be "European plagiarism" as parties from three EU countries are involved (UK, Spain and Romania). But I would go even further and call it "European lagging" and make the case for how European countries fail at using technology to promote tourism. Romania's case, where a simple internet search would have apparently avoided the problem, pales in comparison to the embarrassing france.fr story. On July 13 France launched France.fr, a multilingual tourism information website that went down immediately and is still down almost a month after. In a more optimistic note, as a Romanian taxpayer I want to thank The Economist for the free ad at page 53.

Romania is a land of choices...
Even the British and Spanish companies can made a copy of a logo ... to be sold as original in Romania.... lucky with the Internet....
I believe that the British-Spanish company must be sued.
In rest what might be said...All the best from Romania ... the land of all the possibilities...
that's for good....

Sir: what is the name of the British clean transport company you are talking about in your article? I checked "changetransport.com" which appears on the green leaf image find on google images site. This company name does not appear in the UK, Ireland, North Ireland companies registar. I checked the domain name "changetransport.com" and appears to be created in 2009, June 15, by UTrack, Conor Gildea, Learning and Innovation Center of a technological institute in Ireland. I checked UTrack in the registar and is a dissolved company. So, who is the owner of the green leaf logo you are speaking about?

@dragos27: If there's been a breach of contract then the Romanian government would have a claim against THR-TNS. Such a claim could be heard in Romania or where that firm has its HQs.

@rn_sf: Following your comment, it seems to me that the situation described is a) b. I fully agree with your b). However, governments in poor countries tend to draft terrible contracts. It seems to me that the Ro government (and their taxpayers) stand to lose the most in all this fracas.

This article reminded me why a few years back I dropped my subscription to The Economist after reading several articles containing poor data and flawed logic. Those features seem to define this article as well.
a) There is nothing in the article to support that there was any plagiarism as the title and the first paragraph is suggesting.
a. If the image was a stock image and was legally purchased and appropriate royalties paid by the media company, there is no fault by any of the parties
b. If the media company doing the brand identity work was obligated by contract to use only original artwork and has used stock images instead, than they are probably in breach of their contract and the customer (the Romanian government) is likely within his rights to withhold payment
b) The second issue seems to be the author’s confusion regarding responsibility for misappropriation of intellectual property. If anyone’s intellectual property has been infringed upon, it is the media company that would be at fault and by no means the customer (as it is suggested in the article). Not only that the customer is not at fault, but most contracts related to intellectual property rights transfer contain indemnification clauses which could trigger if the customer is suffering losses as a consequence of claims against the transferred/created IP.
Finally the comments related to the cost of the project and the judgment on its economic value show an ignorance of the investment decision making process.

@dragos 27
A state awarded contract is never the optimum solution, but merely another way of wasting money. I don't see the reason why taxpayers (be they Romanians or other Europeans) should subsidize uncompetitive hotel owners in the "Carpathian garden". This latest blunder is just another proof of how superfluous the Ministry for Ms Udrea is.

I don’t see the connection between the PR blunder of a spanish-british firm and the justice system in Romania.
It’s more the way the contract was atributed. Maybe the cheapest offer on the market is not always the best solution.

So to recover their losses, the Romanian Government should sue THR-TNS. For that, there would have to be a functional justice system, at least at the level of dysfunction found in the average European country. Romania is not there yet. A CC Catch 22, as they say :)

Or maybe they should've taken a file from the Polish book - only that instead of a plumber, they could've used a strawberry.